Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Saturday, February 27, 2016

Editor’s Note: Miss Noonan is increasingly going off the Wall Street reservation to advocate for the American people and Trump-style populism. In this excerpt from her latest column she shows that stopping migrants, refugees and further immigration are not the human rights issue that the media Right and Left portray it. Here she takes up the human rights of the forgotten who are so powerless they are not even part of the equation, except as an evil shadow on the land. Always overlooked is the impact of immigration on these “nobodies” — the working class in the US, Britain and Europe. They are the Trump supporters. They are the unprotected who are damned by the protected class and their media, be it NPR, CBS, CNN or the NY Times.

...The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created….I want to call them the elite to load the rhetorical dice, but let’s stick with the protected.

They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details.

Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They’re insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions.

One issue obviously roiling the U.S. and Western Europe is immigration. It is the issue of the moment, a real and concrete one but also a symbolic one: It stands for all the distance between governments and their citizens.

It is of course the issue that made Donald Trump.

Britain will probably leave the European Union over it. In truth immigration is one front in that battle, but it is the most salient because of the European refugee crisis and the failure of the protected class to address it realistically and in a way that offers safety to the unprotected.

If you are an unprotected American—one with limited resources and negligible access to power—you have absorbed some lessons from the past 20 years’ experience of illegal immigration. You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.

Many Americans suffered from illegal immigration—its impact on labor markets, financial costs, crime, the sense that the rule of law was collapsing. But the protected did fine—more workers at lower wages. No effect of illegal immigration was likely to hurt them personally.

It was good for the protected. But the unprotected watched and saw. They realized the protected were not looking out for them, and they inferred that they were not looking out for the country, either.

The unprotected came to think they owed the establishment—another word for the protected—nothing, no particular loyalty, no old allegiance.

Mr. Trump came from that.

Similarly in Europe, citizens on the ground in member nations came to see the EU apparatus as a racket—an elite that operated in splendid isolation, looking after its own while looking down on the people.

In Germany the incident that tipped public opinion against Chancellor Angela Merkel’s liberal refugee policy happened on New Year’s Eve in the public square of Cologne. Packs of men said to be recent migrants groped and molested groups of young women. It was called a clash of cultures, and it was that, but it was also wholly predictable if any policy maker had cared to think about it. And it was not the protected who were the victims—not a daughter of EU officials or members of the Bundestag. It was middle- and working-class girls—the unprotected, who didn’t even immediately protest what had happened to them. They must have understood that in the general scheme of things they’re nobodies.

What marks this political moment, in Europe and the U.S., is the rise of the unprotected. It is the rise of people who don’t have all that much against those who’ve been given many blessings and seem to believe they have them not because they’re fortunate but because they’re better.

You see the dynamic in many spheres. In Hollywood, as we still call it, where they make our rough culture, they are careful to protect their own children from its ill effects. In places with failing schools, they choose not to help them through the school liberation movement—charter schools, choice, etc.—because they fear to go up against the most reactionary professional group in America, the teachers unions. They let the public schools flounder. But their children go to the best private schools.

This is a terrible feature of our age—that we are governed by protected people who don’t seem to care that much about their unprotected fellow citizens.

And a country really can’t continue this way.

In wise governments the top is attentive to the realities of the lives of normal people, and careful about their anxieties. That’s more or less how America used to be. There didn’t seem to be so much distance between the top and the bottom.

Now is seems the attitude of the top half is: You’re on your own. Get with the program, little racist.

Social philosophers are always saying the underclass must re-moralize. Maybe it is the overclass that must re-moralize.

Monday, February 22, 2016

Background: In a Feb. 19 e-mailed column we photographically reproduced the Babylonian Talmud’s declaration in Kiddushin 68B that the gentiles are donkeys. That column elicited the following response from the critic, which he e-mailed to 65 people:

The Adultery of Oholah and Aholibah…19"Yet she multiplied her harlotries, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the harlot in the land of Egypt. 20"She lusted after their paramours, whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and whose issue is like the issue of horses.21"Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom because of the breasts of your youth.

It does not apply to Christians Moslems and others of sincere faith in the Creator God.

So i would say Michael Hoffman is grossly misrepresenting the Talmud and Judaism in general on this point.

Last I checked, the Book of Ezekiel is in the canon of Christian sacred Scripture.

Sincerely,

Michael P. Korn

____________________

2. Hoffman’s Rejoinder

Dear Mr. Korn

You are thoroughly confused. The Babylonian Talmud (“BT") at Kiddushin 68B where it terms Gentiles animals (donkeys) has no basis in the Bible, and you should not do as the neo-Nazis do and indict the Bible for the rabbinic racism of the Talmud Bavli.

It is in Berakoth 58a that the Babylonian Talmud uses Ezekiel 23:20 as supposed “proof" of the sub-human status of gentiles. The rabbis’ citation of the Bible quote from Ezekiel as a “proof-text” is specious, since the quote does not prove that gentiles are animals. The quote from Ezekiel only says that some Egyptians had large genital organs and copious emissions. This does not in any way prove or even connote that the Egyptians being referred to in the Bible were considered animals. Once again, the Talmud has falsified the Bible by means of distorted interpretation. Other Talmud passages which expound on Ezekiel 23:20 in this racist fashion are: BT Arakin 19b, Berakoth 25b, Niddah 45a, Shabbath 150a, Yebamoth 98a. For furtherinsight, see my book Judaism Discovered, pp. 471-473.

In BT Kiddushin 68B the proof text cited for the belief that non-Jewish nations are donkeys is Genesis 22:5 (not Ezekiel 23 as you allege). But this is a farce because in Genesis 22:5 we find no such thing — Abraham in this Scripture passage is going to sacrifice his son, Isaac. He tells his servants to watch over the donkey which Abraham was using as transportation. Can you believe it? This is the whole basis of the absurd “proof” the Talmud cites from the Bible for claiming gentiles are donkeys. This asinine “proof text" is a product of a frankly insane rabbinic exegetical method, Gezarah shava. It is a formal epistemological system of contrived fantasies employed by Chazal in the Talmud, which is explained and exposed in Judaism Discovered, pp. 169-172.

The Puritan exegete John Owen (1616-1683), quotes the antiquarian and philologist John Selden’s (1584-1654) description of the Gezerah shava: “It is a most common thing among the Talmudists to seek for some support for their additional customs from some words of the Scriptures, and, as it were, to try to hedge them up behind some Biblical word, interpretation or analogy. Those even tolerably familiar with their works will know this well. So the original words are twisted and distorted with great boldness to give some seeming confirmation to their customs, far out of the sense of the original.”

According to the rabbinic principle of Gezerah shava, the student of the Bible can only truly determine what the Bible is teaching through a process of drawing analogies between two disparate Scripture verses based on “verbal congruities” supposedly appearing in both of them. This is the sort of venerated lunacy which is at the core of the Talmudic system of Scriptural falsification and nullification.

Lastly, under the old censorship system whereby English translations of the Babylonian Talmud were heavily redacted and accompanied by disingenuous footnotes, all references to the goyim or the min in the Talmud were explained away as allusions to Cutheans or similar “unbelieving pagans.” It’s pathetic that you would stoop to this propaganda device in the face of the now readily available, uncensored English language Babylonian Talmud, in the pages of which we find numerous hateful references to Christians. But you have the chutzpah to claim that the Talmud respects “Christians…and others of sincere faith in the Creator God.”

Really? Is that why the Talmud says that Jesus was an idolater who deserved to die (BT Sanhedrin 43A), and that the New Testament should be burned (Shabbat 116A)?

If you want to play jokes on the ignorant you are free to do so. It might be a mistake to attempt to hoodwink this writer, however.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Bradley Reed Smith, a pioneer of revisionist history journalism, has died at the age of 86. I came to know Bradley when he worked for me when I served as Assistant Director of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) in Torrance California in 1985. In addition to being a first-class writer, he was an extraordinary human being. I called him “Falstaff” for his girth, chin whiskers and sense of humor. He was a humble man of great courage.

It was years before I discovered that he had been a combat veteran of the Korean War, an ambulance driver in the Vietnam War and a former Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff. I knew him as a libertarian playwright, ex-beatnik bookstore owner prosecuted for selling some off-color novel, and the first non-Right wing individual I encountered in revisionist ranks.

His newsletter, Smith’s Report, originally founded and financed by Willis Carto, combined wit, satire and skeptical research on the alleged homicidal gas chamber operations of the Nazis. Together Bradley and I stormed the National Writer’s Union Conference in New York City, demanding to know what the assembled cosmopolitan elitists were doing to protest the 1984 arson on the IHR which had destroyed its entire $400,000 stock of dissenting history books. The only writers who paid us any attention were a black author from South Africa and the late Alexander Cockburn. Otherwise we had a merry time fending off the spittle and death threats spewed at us by a gaggle of irate Zionists. It was great fun.

His best work was on America’s college campuses, where he succeeded in placing numerous large advertisements in student newspapers questioning the Six Million mythos. His phone calls to student editors were so folksy and disarming that he managed to stiffen their resolve to resist a tidal wave of censorship pressure. He troubled the powers-that-be to such an extent that the New York Times entered the fray to condemn his activism. He also appeared on national television on the Phil Donahue program.

In spite of these achievements, like most revisionists he was chronically short of funding and due to these financial difficulties, Bradley, who was fluent in Spanish and married to a Mexican lady, was forced to relocate from California to a border town in Mexico just south of the California state line. He was comfortable in Mexico, where he had once been a bullfighter (!) and from his base there he continued to publish Smith’s Report until last year, when German-American revisionist Germar Rudolf and his associates assumed responsibility for the publication as Bradley began to lose his battle with cancer.

Many highly active or prominent World War II revisionists are offered violence at some time or other and Bradley faced JDL thugs with intrepid defiance. I remember him rising at a public meeting to protest the removal of a revisionist college student. An ADL representative was there to advocate the student’s expulsion and more than a few Los Angles area Zionist terrorists were present when Bradley stood up to say that the ADL rep was “a horse’s ass.” The audience roared. Bradley got back to his car safely.

Someday, when our people recover their sanity, men like Bradley Smith will not have to die in poverty. Someday a statue will be erected to him in honor of his struggle for the First Amendment and truth for Germany. Until then, let us kindle his memory — and example.

Thursday, February 18, 2016

The “who am I to judge?” pontiff issues a judgment on Donald Trump: “Not a Christian”

We’ve got a history lesson for “His Holiness” — Christianity from Britain to Italy was repeatedly saved and preserved through victories in border wars and by erecting walls and forts. Mr. Trump is right about illegal immigration: we need a wall to defend our land.If the pontiff is going to start issuing certificates of excommunication he ought to begin by cleaning his own papal house:

I. Starting with the bishops and cardinals who approve of the crime of sodomy, such as Bruno Forte, who wrote: “...connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.”

—Archbishop Bruno Forte, Relatio post disceptationem, 2014 Church of Rome Synod on the Family (emphasis supplied).

II. The Pontifical Commission of Pope Francis teaches the abominable heresy that Jews are saved by genetic descent and need not believe in Jesus Christ: “...it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God.” — Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, December 10, 2015. Cardinal Kurt Koch, President (emphasis supplied).

The Pope of Rome’s intervention in the process of the American people choosing the next President of the United States is an outrageous act of foreign subversion. Francis reigns in an Italy with one of the lowest birthrates on earth. He is on record mocking Catholics who “breed like rabbits.” He preaches social justice and compassion for the poor while benefiting from the usury proceeds of his shylock Vatican Bank. This “Holy Father" is a mentally and spiritually sick individual.

As Christians we support the building of a just society in places like the failed state of Mexico. This begins with sealing the border so that the best and brightest in that nation will remain in their land, and with the help of the people of the United States, extirpate from their government and society the plague of systematicbribery, corruption, kidnapping, rape and mass murder. Turning the USA into Mexico servesno one but the devil.

The truth is, Pope Francis refuses to judge the mortal sins that he regards as virtually harmless. He only issues judgments against those acts which were long ago deemed civic virtues when sanity still prevailed in Christendom.

One need not favor the invasion of one’s nation to qualify as a follower of Christ. The call for open borders is a revolutionary plank of the Babylonian Beast System, with Antichrist at its head.

__________________________

Michael Hoffman is the author of Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not; and the editor of Revisionist History newsletter, published six times a year.

"Against All of His Personal Beliefs, Scalia Was Cremated"

Against All of His Personal Beliefs, Scalia Was Cremated

One of the most amazing facts surrounding this “mystery death” is that Scalia’s body was cremated before an autopsy could be performed. Cremated? Wasn’t Scalia a Catholic? The last time I heard, Catholics do not sanction cremations. Oh yes, you can be cremated if you are Catholic, but it is extremely frowned upon. The regulations against cremation is one of the strongest within the Catholic Church, even if the prohibitions are left over biases from the past..However, criminals with something to hide frequently burn the body after the commission of a crime. This fact, alone, should have triggered a major murder investigation. Where is Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, when she is needed the most? Did Obama send flowers to the widow yet? Charred bodies yield no autopsy clues. (End quote)

____________________________________

Antonin Scalia’s body was not cremated. His remains will lie in repose at the Supreme Court prior to his funeral at the National Cathedral, and then burial.

This Internet hoax about Scalia being cremated was passed to me in e-mail by a person who simply accepted the hoax as truth because the hoax confirmed the person’s bias. In psychology this is termed "confirmation bias."

It is sorrowful to observe how people will believe anything on the Internet that is in line with their expectations and preconceptions. Verification and corroboration appear not to be a requirement for belief. We have an obligation to God’s Truth to exhibit as least as much skepticism toward Internet rumors as we do toward the Establishment media, otherwise we are sowing confusion, which is the ante-chamber to deceit, which is a sin.

Anyone who thinks the Cryptocracy has not infiltrated Right wing Internet sources is naive. Require verification and corroboration before you disseminate news; or failing that, designate the supposed news, an allegation, a hypothesis, or to really call a spade a spade, term it what it is — a rumor.

But don’t just pass the link on with the questionable assertion in your subject line as if it were a fact, otherwise it becomes a kind of endorsement on your part. After you have endorsed enough myths, your credibility is so damaged that when you do have truth to report no one will believe you — that’s how the Cryptocracy benefits from the Internet.

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

My Memories of Nino Scalia, the Most Jewish Gentile on the Supreme Court

By Nathan Lewin • February 15, 2016

(JTA) — “When there was no Jewish justice on the Supreme Court,” Antonin “Nino” Scalia told me, “I considered myself the Jewish justice.”

After Abe Fortas resigned in May 1969, there would be no Jewish justice on the court for nearly a quarter of a century, until President Bill Clinton named Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the court in 1993.

Scalia had been on the Supreme Court since Ronald Reagan appointed him in 1986, so there were seven years during which Scalia saw himself as the court’s guardian of Jewish heritage. The New York-raised judge was shocked that he had to teach his colleagues how to pronounce “yeshiva” (Chief Justice Rehnquist William called it “ye-shy-va”) and, Scalia added proudly to me, “I even told them what a yeshiva is.”

Scalia’s admiration for Jews and Jewish learning explains the frequent references in his opinions to the Talmud and other Jewish sources, and the significant number of Orthodox Jewish law clerks he hired.

We were both in the Harvard Law School class that began in 1957 and graduated in 1960 – only 10 women and no African-Americans were in a graduating class of almost 500. Scalia and I were invited to become editors of the Harvard Law Review at the conclusion of our freshman year; in those days Law Review membership depended entirely on grades....

Scalia was unconventional, even in those days. Law Review editors vied for clerkships on the Supreme Court or with respected federal judges. Scalia chose not to join that competition. Instead he opted for a Harvard fellowship that enabled him and Maureen – the beautiful Catholic girl he met on the recommendation of another Review editor and later married – to travel to Europe and other exotic locations during the year after we were granted LLBs (jacked up by Harvard, many years later, to JDs). He then joined the Cleveland law firm known as Jones, Day, Cockley and Reavis...

Scalia and his wife were guests in our sukkah, and he was kind enough to meet with law school classes I brought to Washington to hear Supreme Court arguments.... He also accepted my recommendations to attend and address Orthodox Jewish gatherings such as colloquia run by Chabad-Lubavitch, sessions and dinners with Agudath Israel of America, and a mass meeting at Yeshiva University where he and I discussed current issues of constitutional law and public policy. Each event was enormously successful.

...There is universal agreement that Nino Scalia was brilliant, amazingly articulate and a real mensch...Scalia is, of course, an Italian name. If one writes it with Hebrew letters, there are two possible – albeit squarely contradictory – ways of writing Scalia. One is to use the letters sin, kaf, lamed, which are also the root of “sechel” – Hebrew for “wisdom.” The other is to use the Hebrew letters samech, koof, lamed, which are the root “sokol” – meaning “to stone.”

Some praised Nino’s wisdom; others were ready to stone him. But all must concur that he was a great man, that the United States he loved is greatly diminished by his loss, and that he greatly revered Jews and Jewish tradition. (End quote)

The Iranian Fars news agency reported on December 29, 2013 thatPrince Turki al-Faisal, who was at that time the director of the Saudi intelligence service, met with several senior Israeli security officials, including Tamir Pardo, the head of the Israeli Mossad. According to the report, the meeting took place in Geneva, Switzerland on November 27, 2013. Fars based its report on a whistleblower with access to Saudi classified information, who was named by the news agency as Mujtahid. According to Fars, he “is well connected with the inner circles of the Saudi secret service” and revealed the details of the meeting on his Twitter account. Mujtahid’s Tweet reportedly said that Prince Bandar and Israeli officials agreed on a number of crucial issues, including exercising stronger control over Syria’s Jihadist forces. At theInstitute for National Security Studies conference in Tel Aviv, on Jan. 19, 2016, Moshe Ya’alon stated that he prefers the rule of ISIS in Syria.

Friday, February 12, 2016

Bigotry toward Judaic persons is not tolerated, and rightly so. But the Talmudic mentality makes distinctions between Judaics (self-described “Jews”) and gentiles (“goyim”). In Hollywood and the American press, bigotry toward goyim is good fun; even “immortal” — it’s perfectly permissible, indeed it marks the anti-gentile bigot as a comedic wit.

So we have the usual monotonous double-standard, which is the hallmark of the Talmudic mentality: one law for the Holy People (against whom bigotry is a three-alarm fire, a major felony and something so appalling and criminal it will reverberate from here to Einstein’s cosmic black hole and back, until the end of time).

The law for the goyim is different, however; particularly German goyim. It does the soul good to mock and degrade Germans. Dorothy Rabinowitz, media columnist for the Wall Street Journal reviewed the new HBO television series, “Vinyl,” which debuts on Valentine’s Day 2016, as follows:

The “hilarious interactions” include referring to German people as "goose-stepping, bloodthirsty, f—king Huns.” English actor John Cleese indulged in bigoted anti-German repartee on the old TV series “Fawlty Towers." Rabinowitz terms his display of prejudice, “immortal exchanges.”

The Babylonian Talmud’s double standards are clearly reflected in the American media's insouciant approval for anti-Goyimism, which they exhibit with no fear of being interdicted or called out by human rights campaigners. In Hollywood there are no Anti-Defamation Leagues for Germans.

Why? Because in Orthodox Judaism there is one standard of privilege and immunity for the Holy People, and another for all the lesser souls upon whom it is open season to loath and besmirch.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

In this approximately ten minute video excerpt from a conversation with Prof. Jim Fetzer, revisionist historian Michael Hoffman elucidates an anomaly: the seldom studied parallels between Judaism and Hitlerism, and the service which Adolf Hitler provided to rabbinic Talmudism. Michael also analyzes the exploitation of the history of World War II for propaganda purposes.